Dennis Prager's Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse

You don't have to watch - listening is enough. If you can listen for 40 minutes, do so.

Can Pedophile Pride Parades Be Far Behind?

The people who want to rape or molest your minor children without legal or social consequences are at it again. Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.

What's the Associated Press' Plan For Supporting the Constitution?

Sometimes, just the headlines are enough to get me sighing like Al Gore. Take this one from the Associated Press:

Perry Says No to "Obamacare," But What's His Plan?

Maybe the person who picked that headline for the AP missed a day or two of school, but they can still look up the Constitution for themselves and read Article II.

It... is... not... the... role... of... the... President of the United States... to... offer... a... health care insurance plan.

But since the AP wants one, how about this one:

My National Health Care Plan

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick the government rules. Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything.

Playful Walrus Update

Priority matters have kept me away from blogging much, though there is much I have wanted to blog. I hope to get back to blogging regularly soon.

Take a look at what is over there in the column on the right. You can find my archives and other blogs with much good readin'.

Also, you can follow me on Twitter to get quick comments more often than what I've been able to blog as of late.

As always, thanks for reading. Bookmark, follow, and share!

APA Needs Head Examined

The American Psychological Association, or at least a group within it, has come out in support of neutering marriage. The excuse they give for their political move is essentially their support for a placebo effect. You can find out how I feel about that and how my childhood is to blame over at The Opine Editorials.

And the Mocking of Perry's Faith Begins

Philip Brimble of Los Angeles thought he was being so clever when he wrote in to the Los Angeles Times in reaction to Rick Perry's public prayer:

For Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his very public political pray-in: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

The problem for Brimble is that Jesus, the source of those words, prayed in public. Jesus was making a statement of those who loudly made personal prayers in public as a show; he clearly wasn't prohibiting all public prayer, such as corporate prayer. Context, context, context.

From GotQuestions.org:

In Matthew 6:5-7, Jesus gives two ways to ensure that our prayers are righteous. First, prayers should not be for the purpose of being seen by others as righteous or “spiritual.” Secondly, prayers should be authentic, as from the heart, and not just vain repetition or “empty phrases.” However, when compared with other Scriptures that show people praying in public, we know that this is not an exhortation to always pray alone. The issue is to avoid sin. Those who struggle with the desire to be seen as righteous and who notice that temptation creeping in during public prayer would do well to heed Jesus’ prescription to get alone and pray just to the Father who will reward in secret. Jesus knew that the Pharisees’ desire was to be seen by men as righteous, not really to talk to God. This statement about prayer was meant to convict, and is instructive for all Christians, but it does not mean that all prayer must be secret.

See the rest of what's at the link for some context.

Previously: Hit and Run Bible Mockers

From Stand to Reason: "Never Read a Bible Verse"

Based on recent history, it isn't the evangelical Christian politicians that should frighten people. It is the atheists. Atheistic rulers killed hundreds of millions of people in the previous century alone.

I Love Plastic Shopping Bags

Los Angeles County has banned certain plastic shopping bags in all areas that are not part of an incorporated city, and some cities within the county have banned those bags within their cities. I have written about this before (here, here, here, and here) [Sorry, links might not be working anymore].

Here's an article in the Los Angeles Times by Andrew Khouri.

Brandon Martin recalls the woman who came through his supermarket checkout line, only to find that she would have to pay a dime apiece for paper shopping bags.

Plastic bags, she was told, were no longer an option.

The woman thought for a moment, Martin recalled, and then directed him to load the groceries in the plastic trash bags she purchased.

"I thought that was a pretty nifty idea," said Martin, who bags groceries at the Ralphs in La Crescenta. "I've never encountered that."

Of course he thought that was nifty. It sells more trash bags, which take up more material, by the way.

But it may not be the last time. Since July 1, large supermarkets and pharmacies in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County have been required to charge 10 cents each for paper bags and have been banned from using plastic grocery bags. Similar bans are in effect or pending in several cities across Southern California.

It's not good enough just to ban plastic bags. They now have to charge for the paper ones. Why? To encourage using the more expensive bags (which could lead to food poisoning).

The county ordinance was designed to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags and cut down on waste.

People living in these jurisdictions should protest by 1) shopping in jurisdictions that don’t have this ridiculous law, and 2) deliberately generating more waste. How many people reuse those bags to clean up after their pets? If they use something that take more material, isn’t that a net environmental loss? Everyone who used to use the grocery bags to pick up pet waste should now toss their used batteries in to whatever else they use. And their government-mandated toxic lightbulbs.

Some customers have been using odd contrivances to lug out their purchases — including baskets, cardboard boxes, old paper and plastic bags, backpacks and even their hands.

Back the car right up to the door.

Shopper Ana Castorena said that thanks to the ban, she never forgets to bring her reusable bag to the store.

Yes, but what if you don’t bring enough?

"If we're not forced, we won't make a change," said Castorena, 33, standing outside the Hacienda Heights supermarket.

Heaven forbid!

Just down the road from a Ralphs store in unincorporated Marina del Rey, a Ralphs in the city of Los Angeles remains unaffected by the ban. Sales have risen about 5% at that market since the store less than half a mile away stopped using plastic bags, a store manager said.

Great. It will be interesting to see what happens to sales tax revenue.

Long Beach's ban took effect Monday. Santa Monica begins enforcement Sept. 1, and Pasadena and other cities are debating scrapping plastic bags as well. By January, L.A. County's ban will extend to about 1,000 smaller stores in unincorporated areas.

One more reason to move.

Don't yell at the store staff. This isn't their fault.

Do We Really Need More Crossdressers on TV?

Scott Collins reports at LATimes.com that GLAAD, the Griping Leftists Against… something or other… is giddy about ABC Family. The Walt Disney Company owns ABC Family. Anyone remember where they got it? I do.

In its fifth annual Network Responsibility Index, the advocacy group [Leftist] Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) assessed the quality and quantity of gay characters on the broadcast networks plus 10 cable channels from June 2010 to the end of May.

The top score went to the Walt Disney Co.'s cable outlet ABC Family, which is targeted at viewers 14 to 34 and features several series with gay characters, including "Pretty Little Liars" and "Greek." CW earned the best score among any broadcaster, thanks to openly gay characters on shows such as "90210" and "Gossip Girl."

Homosexuals and crossdressers are actually overrepresented on TV.

GLAAD representatives say that representations of gays and lesbians on TV shows is important because the medium helps shape Americans' perceptions.

Which is why groups like GLAAD do everything they can to pressure the media into portraying homosexual behavior and crossdressing in a positive light. From watching television, you'd probably think every homosexual or crossdressing person is intelligent, funny, attractive, and kind, and you wouldn't know about the correlations to higher rates of mental illness, physical illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse.

The group also pointed to the immense buying power of gays and lesbians, estimated at $835 billion in 2011.

And what would be the buying power of people who don't identity as gay or lesbians?

One area of concern for GLAAD: the continuing lack of transgender characters on television.

Not a lot of viewers want to see people who are mentally ill, especially if their illness is to the point of having genitalia surgically removed.

It is amazing how much MSM attention these reports get. I really have to applaud the success of the homosexuality advocates, even though some of the things they are doing I think are highly destructive. But such a small group of people have manipulated things so effectively it is remarkable. They got ideological control of so much of academia and the media, have gotten so much legislation passed, have won so much in courts, have gotten a lot of control in the workplace and professional organizations, have gotten religious denominations to abandon thousands of years of doctrine and practices. And still, they manage to get enough people to believe they are "powerless".

I don't want homosexual people smeared in the media. I want them protected, just like I want anyone protected, from crime or the denial of their rights. But I oppose the homosexuality advocates on many other things.

You know who is truly underrepresented on television or depicted negatively? Characters who attend Jewish or Christian religious services regularly or pray regularly.

The Murder of Larry King

I haven't been following this case and trial closely, but I have noticed the coverage in the Los Angeles Times of the trial of Brandon McInerney, who is charged with murdering his classmate, Larry King. Murder is always a very serious matter, but so many murders get little media attention these days. The Los Angeles Times and some other news media have been following this case because the young murder victim identified as gay and would wear some women's clothing and makeup to school.

According to the defense, he also was sexually harassing the defendant. The Left takes sexual harassment very seriously and many on the Left urge the immediate dismissal/expulsion of harassers. Unless those harassers are pro-choice Democrats or are homosexual. Then, everyone else has to learn to deal with it.

But no matter. King, sadly, is dead. And no amount of harassment by him justifies his premeditated murder. If McInerney brought a gun to school, given the laws that expressly make it clear that nobody, especially not a minor, should be doing so, then this was a premeditated murder and McInerney should he held accountable under criminal law. He should not get a break because his victim was homosexual, nor if his victim was harassing him, and neither should he receive extra punishment because of his victim's sexual orientation.

As far as I can tell, this was an evil, callous murder, plain and simple, and we can't excuse that, nor in any way blame the victim. If you're not acting in self-defense or the defense of another, then it is murder and there is no excuse, no justification.

Nor should any religious or conservative media disapproval of homosexual behavior or public crossdressing be blamed. If the Left, especially homosexuality advocates, can blame this murder on general disapproval of homosexual behavior, than logic necessitates they should be blamed when someone who disapproves of homosexual behavior is the victim of a crime, given the things the Leftist homosexuality advocates have said about those who haven't joined their parade, literally and figuratively.

Larry King appears to have been someone who needed help. Under California law, however, his apparent mental issues were accommodated, and, unfortunately, were fed a toxic diet.

But let's not forget that above all else, King was murdered and justice must be served.

Would the Left say the same thing if a white, non-Leftist, heterosexual male was murdered by someone he was sexually harassing?

Catherine Saillant has a recent Los Angeles Times article on the trial.